Is criticising a national culture racist?

[Antilogic]

19th century thinkers often got a lot of things right in that regard because they seem more perceptive and more honest. And even if they turn out to be wrong, they still may produce a couple of highly useful insights in the process that can be used more generally.

The guy of my current avatar believed that British culture produced inferior philosophy, because the English language doesn't allow the same precision of explaining concepts as German and especially French. Thus, Analytic philosophers were pretty much predestinied to come from Anglo-American culture according to that view. That may be untrue, however, in the process, he raises a point how language may affect our perception. Which may be kinda true.

And national cultures (and regional variations on them per province) are a thing: To know a language or dialect, what kind of local holidays and commerations they have and how they celebrate it gives a unique view how a culture tends to look at things. It feels differently than anything you have seen. Although here already a cultural problem itself presents: You are American and your culture is universally understood. You will have trouble perceiving other cultures (altough not subtle differences per state or regions within those states) because everyone you know (including myself) will put up an Anglo-American mask to make themselves understandable to you. To be frank, it is easier - as in less likely to appear hostile or racist - to make the thesis I have brought before you in my native Dutch as opposed to English. The majority of the world populace doesn't speak Dutch. And the Dutch, French and German mentalies are more sensitive to cultural differences than Anglo-Americans, especially considering the latter's dominance worldwide.

So I don't know how far you want to get into specific examples or general concepts, but the quote in that other thread wasn't about whether or not the Palestinians had a word for the concept of schadenfreude. You pretty explicitly said the Israelis were making fancy technology while all those Palestinians were committing terrorist acts. For comparison's sake, we could quote-dive back to get specific lines from all kinds of writers, French, Spanish, English, etc. on colonialism and you will find the same common threads with the same racial undertones.

But to stay general, I'm not saying there are not differences in language across borders. What I'm saying is that people ultimately value a lot of the same things. All the big Western nations have holidays commemorating their soldiers or celebrating the winter solstice, for example. The tiny details differ, the language used differs, but the same intent is there. Everyone values their family and community in their own way. And I'd argue that a rural farmer in Europe or Southeast Asia or wherever, even if he speaks a different language and celebrates a different holiday, has an awful lot in common with a farmer in rural America in terms of their daily routine and providing for their family. A lot more in common than, say, a wealthy patrician in their home country.

The universal understanding of American culture, I think, is just another expression of the similarities of people across borders. But it's not just the US exporting tons of Hollywood movies all over the world--the Beatles came to America, as have other Canadian and British musicians. Modern technology has only made it possible to realize that similarity, and since people all over like it, they listen to it, watch it, etc.

 

[Borachio]

I see the problem with the "criticism of culture" as being that it is often circumstantial rather than cultural.

For example: there are plenty of holier than thou critics of the US regarding their frequent and often unwarranted flexing of military muscle. I fully agree that unwarranted flexing of military muscle is disgusting and should be discouraged by any available means...but...

When someone from a country with a record of conquest and imperialism that stretches back ten times further than the US even has any history gets all righteous about it just because their country doesn't happen to have the power right now to follow their own clearly identical cultural inclinations I find that equally disgusting, if not more.

Hmm. Who are you talking about here? 10 times further than the US takes us back 2,500 years. Maybe more. So... the Chinese?

 

[Antilogic]

The universal understanding of American culture, I think, is just another expression of the similarities of people across borders. But it's not just the US exporting tons of Hollywood movies all over the world--the Beatles came to America, as have other Canadian and British musicians. Modern technology has only made it possible to realize that similarity, and since people all over like it, they listen to it, watch it, etc.

Thinking about this part of the argument a little more, and I got a question that may be illuminating.

What do you think American culture is?

 

[Hygro]

What do you think American culture is?

Freedom from shame, through shame.

 

[Tahuti]

Freedom from shame, through shame.

But to stay general, I'm not saying there are not differences in language across borders. What I'm saying is that people ultimately value a lot of the same things. All the big Western nations have holidays commemorating their soldiers or celebrating the winter solstice, for example. The tiny details differ, the language used differs, but the same intent is there. Everyone values their family and community in their own way. And I'd argue that a rural farmer in Europe or Southeast Asia or wherever, even if he speaks a different language and celebrates a different holiday, has an awful lot in common with a farmer in rural America in terms of their daily routine and providing for their family. A lot more in common than, say, a wealthy patrician in their home country.

The first sentence may be true. We are all humans after all. And thus, we have commons threads contradistinguished from other animals. However, I disagree the same intent is necessarily always there. It is telling of a particular bias to emphasise cultural commonalities. Europeans will always be different from non-Europeans. Although frankly, us European may have to develop a synthesis with the Far-Eastern cultures of the Turkic countries, Korea, Japan and China to prevent corrosion from Islam and other corrosive tendencies towards European civilisation. I am confident that Chinese Confucianism will be a more helpful force for Western civilisation than say Marxism, even if the latter was developed in Europe.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hmm. Who are you talking about here? 10 times further than the US takes us back 2,500 years. Maybe more. So... the Chinese?

Anglo-Saxons.

And Franks.

I exaggerated a bit on the number.

 

[Borachio]

Oh. OK. Who's rattled your cage vexed you greatly recently then?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh. OK. Who's rattled your cage vexed you greatly recently then?

Their descendents...peace loving Frenchmen who's country is so much more cultured so of course only boorish and violent America is responsible for the world's problems...oh, and Russia. And of course Englishmen who routinely seem to forget that the British empire wasn't actually formed because the brown people all just loved them while sneering at America's racial issues.

Admittedly my cage rattles fairly easily, but those are genuine encounters I've had recently...and repeatedly.

 

[Domen]

And Franks.
(...)
Their descendents...peace loving Frenchmen

Frenchmen rather consider themselves to be descendants of Gauls.

They ignore Romans who gave them language and roads* and Franks who gave them name.

Spoiler :

*They also gave roads and crucifixion, among other things - but not language in this case - to Jews:


Link to video.

 

[Domen]

Europeans will always be different from non-Europeans.

If Europeans = people who live in Europe, then I really don't think so. Maybe until ca. 2100 but not "always".

 

[Senethro]

https://anarchopapist.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/racism-is-as-prevalent-as-ever/

pffffffffffffffaaaaaaahahaha can we not give the time of day to neoreactionary jerks who use codephrases like "human biodiversity" to cover up their racism? Thx

 

[Angst]

The Danish racism paragraph answers the OP's problem as "yes" as it states being bigoted about a nationality is racism too. Fwiw

 

[Antilogic]

The first sentence may be true. We are all humans after all. And thus, we have commons threads contradistinguished from other animals. However, I disagree the same intent is necessarily always there. It is telling of a particular bias to emphasise cultural commonalities. Europeans will always be different from non-Europeans. Although frankly, us European may have to develop a synthesis with the Far-Eastern cultures of the Turkic countries, Korea, Japan and China to prevent corrosion from Islam and other corrosive tendencies towards European civilisation. I am confident that Chinese Confucianism will be a more helpful force for Western civilisation than say Marxism, even if the latter was developed in Europe.

You will always look different from other people, that doesn't mean you actually are.

Do you really think South African mothers under apartheid didn't value family like your culture does? Do you really think Vietnamese mothers who lost kids during the post-WW2 wars there didn't value family like your culture does? Do you really think Palestinian mothers with children killed by Israeli bombing didn't value family like your culture does? Would you say it to their faces without a hint of shame? Straight yes/no.

(Side note: I'm kinda sad you didn't say anything about American culture. I had this whole plan where if you said rock and roll and blue jeans I was going to say Creole food, Mardi Gras, and jazz. If you picked that, I was going to start dropping candlepin and fluffernutters. I think Americans may be better at spotting cultural differences and similarities than you give us collective credit for.)

 

[Agent327]

In several threads, I have made some comments on the culture of Palestinians, which was received with shock. I guess my wording should have been a wee more careful, given how this is forum rather sympathetic to them. However, when I criticised the culture of the US for its insistence on dividing individuals among racial lines, including by 'racial minorities', I may have not received the same degree of shock, though my comments were still received with a similar sense of bewilderment, chiefly by US posters, who are otherwise rather content with accepting criticism of their own culture by foreigners.

Not in my experience, but soit. I wonder what this 'Palestinian culture' you intended to criticize is though. I don't think you will find many people in support of Hamas - here or elsewhere -, so I'm a bit at a loss.

Is being hostile at a culture a form of anti-national sentiment or racism? And if it is, does it justify a mild degree of such in the pursuit of truth? My viewpoints are rather clear on this (it isn't, but if it is, I'm okay with that), so it may seem like a loaded question, but I am rather curious how those that disagree would argumentate their viewpoints, or even whether opponents have thought about on methods of countering such lines of reasoning.

Since 'a culture' is not synonymous with neither 'a nation' nor 'a race'. I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

 

[Traitorfish]

And national cultures (and regional variations on them per province) are a thing: To know a language or dialect, what kind of local holidays and commerations they have and how they celebrate it gives a unique view how a culture tends to look at things.

That's a layer of culture, though, one of many. A person might participate in a "Dutch national culture", but they'll also participate in regional cultures and local cultures and professional cultures and hobby-cultures and music-cultures and all other kinds of cultures that are neither simply derivative of nor contained by "national culture". "National culture" might have more weight because it's used to legitimize a political consensus, but even that's not entirely reliable; look at Scotland, where we have both a "Scottish national culture" and a "British national culture", each of which fulfill that political function in their own way.

The reality is, there's no point at which you can say "people are essentially this identity", so if you attempt to divide people up after that pattern, you're probably skimming far closer to racism than a reasonable person would be comfortable with.

 

[warpus]

I was hoping you'd come to this thread.

So, you see it as problematic because it is stereotyping. Don't you think it is possible to picture a national culture without resorting to it? Although I readily concede it will always involve a degree of oversimplification, which may degrade into stereotyping if left unchecked.

Yeah, just say "A lot of Americans like French Fries" and not "All Americans love to stuff their faces with Freedom fries". The first is factual, the latter isn't.

 

[Agent327]

Or you could say A lot of Americans don't like French fries - which would be equally true.

 

[Borachio]

Well. I wouldn't say it's precisely "equally" true.

Take a large enough bunch of Americans, and there's a good chance the majority of them will like French fries.

Even if only because they've heard the rumour themselves: that they like them. And people the world over do so like to fit right in.

But in principle, I've no doubt you're right: you could find a bunch of Americans that don't like them. And you could call that bunch "a lot" if you chose to.

 

[Agent327]

"A lot" simply means many. So both statements are equally true. Although one of them might be more stereotypical than the other. Or not.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It works only if you happen to be part of the national culture. I'm sure most Americans won't mind if a fellow American points out the short-sights of his culture, but if someone else does it, they'll defend it to the last.